Judgment

ORDER - This matter came up for our consideration on December 8, 1992 pursuant to the order dated November 24, 1992, to decide the appropriate order which needs to be made in the existing situation. A brief resume of the events leading to the present stage may first be given.

2. This Court has held that the Speaker while deciding the question of disqualification of a Member of the Legislative Assembly under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution acts as a statutory authority, in which capacity the Speakers decision is subject to judicial review by the High Court and this Court. Pursuant thereto, certain orders were made by this Court in proceedings arising out of the order of disqualification of certain members, made by the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh who holds the office of Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. In spite of the clear decision of this Court that an order made under the Tenth Schedule by the Speaker relating to the disqualification of a Member of the Legislative Assembly is subject to judicial review and the Speaker while making an order under the Tenth Schedule acts merely as a statutory authority amenable to the courts jurisdiction in that capacity, the contemner continued to resist the implementation of such orders made by this court. The petitioner, I. Manilal Singh was then the Secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. In his capacity as Secretary of the Assembly, the petitioner, I. Manilal Singh took steps to implement this Courts orders. The allegation made by I. Manilal Singh is that the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh got annoyed with him for his attempt to secure obedience and implementation of this Courts orders and, therefore, as an act of reprisal, the contemner has made an order of his compulsory retirement. The petitioner, I. Manilal Singh, therefore, challenged the order of his compulsory retirement made by the contemner inter alia on the ground that it was mala fide being an act of reprisal by the contemner for the petitioners obedience of this Courts orders. This Court stayed the operation of the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner, I. Manilal Singh as well as the order of his suspension passed by the contemner. The petitioner then complained that in spite of this Courts orders, the contemner was not permitting him to function as the Secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly and was also not paying him his salary and other dues; and that another person had been appointed by the contemner to function as the Secretary.

3. On July 22, 1992, this Court made an order reiterating that the petitioner, I. Manilal Singh shall be allowed to function as the Secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly without delay and that all concerned will enable him to so function, and some further directions were also given.

4. On August 4, 1992 another order was made by this Court as a result of the grievance made by the petitioner, I. Manilal Singh that in spite of the orders of this Court, he was neither allowed to function as the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly nor had he been paid his salary etc. In that order, this Court further directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Manipur to ensure that the direction given for payment of dues to the petitioner was promptly obeyed.

5. When the matter was again taken up on August 25, 1992, the petitioner, I. Manilal Singh stated that another order had been made on August 19, 1992 declaring that the petitioner is to retire from service on August 31, 1992 as Joint Secretary which was in disobedience of this Courts orders, and was a further act of reprisal against him by the contemner. Accordingly, in the order dated August 25, 1992, this Court after recording that this action appears to be prima facie in violation of this Courts order, stayed the operation of the order dated August 19, 1992. The order after mentioning the statement made by the learned counsel for the Chief Secretary, H. V. Goswami expressed this Courts